Author
Topic: What would the EO Church do? (Read 1898 times)

I don't know if you heard, but Nazi war criminal Erich Priebke recently died. He committed horrible crimes against Italians in retaliation to a bombing on German soldiers during World War II, so he was naturally hated in Italy.

After the war, he moved to Argentina, where he earned a living as a teacher. He did this for 40 years until he was tracked down and brought back to Italy, where he remained on house arrest for his crimes.

He was a Catholic and he (according to this lawyer) confessed his crimes to a priest and went to Mass every Sunday. But he denied parts of the Holocaust and he blamed the Italians for provoking the attack (a car bomb killed 33 German soldiers, so 10 Italians were killed for each German soldier that died).

When he died a few days ago, the Vatican refused to give him a funeral Mass and then forbade any church in Rome (and I think the entire country of Italy) from doing so. The SSPX attempted to give him a funeral Mass, but the funeral was cancelled after protests became violent.

To get to my point, I don't condone what this man did or his views on the Holocaust. But he confessed his crimes and was allowed to receive the Sacraments weekly. I'm a little bit upset that the Vatican refused to give him a funeral Mass, which was his right as a Catholic. The only reason I can think of, in Canon Law, that they could give for refusing the funeral Mass was to say that he was a manifest sinner. But to my knowledge, Holocaust denial is not a sin.

So I was wondering: what would the EO church have done? Would this man have received a funeral Mass?

I know it's difficult answering a hypothetical, but I'm just curious. I'm really bothered by the fact that the RC Church says its a hospital for sinners, but then turns it back on a sinner.

Logged

I am no longer a "confused Roman Catholic" as I joined the Orthodox Church in April 2016.

I discussed this with my brother the other day, and I concluded that the SSPX did the right thing. He confessed, and partook of the Sacraments as a Catholic, so he should have been allowed a funeral. After that, its up to God. We are to hope for mercy for all. If he confesses, then that should have granted him the right to Christian burial.

As for what the Orthodox Church would do, I don't know. I would hope that they would give someone the benefit of the doubt enough to give them a funeral.

It realy sadens me when political correctness and or pressure from ppl cause the church to act diferently than it normaly would. Ie: he confessed his sins went daily to mass and received communion. I would then assume he was forgiven his sins by his confessor, that is why he was allowed to revice communion. so i would assume a burial would be ok. though i dnt know much abt his church.

In Orthodoxy when one admits/confecess his sins and truly repents. Then the confessor makes a decision if he will forgive him his sins. if yes, he is allowed to recive communion. (whats is it Christ said, if you forgive his sins then his sins are also forgiven in heven? reffering to the first priests) if not, he is then instructed on what to do and or how long to wait to be absolved of his sins and to revceive comunion. WHAT PPL think is right or wrong or just should play NO role thereafter and a proper Orthodox berial shuld be given. my 2 cents.

The only reason why one would be denied a service or sacrament would be spiritual, not social or political. I guess they caved in because of political pressure and out of fear of the world they denied his service (if I understand the situation correctly).

In the old days Confession was done in front of the entire people because the purpose of it is to tell the sin that you committed against others and against God.

What the Priest should have done is tell him to turn himself in if he truly repented, pay for his crimes done against man, but forgive him for the Crimes he did against God, and then Commune him. Otherwise he is going unpunished for his crimes.

In the old days Confession was done in front of the entire people because the purpose of it is to tell the sin that you committed against others and against God.

What the Priest should have done is tell him to turn himself in if he truly repented, pay for his crimes done against man, but forgive him for the Crimes he did against God, and then Commune him. Otherwise he is going unpunished for his crimes.

Thank you for your response. Do you think this is how most EO priests/bishops would treat the situation?

In the RC Church, the priest is not allowed to give you a penance that would expose your crimes to others. For example, if you murder someone, the priest cannot tell you to turn yourself in as a condition of the remission of one's sins. So while I think this is a good idea solution for the EO church (he did not publicly repent, but rather mocked the public), in the RC Church, he was not required to publicly repent. Therefore, he was still given absolution and thus should have received a funeral Mass.

Personally, I think the EO form of penance is better. If a person publicly sinned and caused scandal to his community, he should repent in front of them. I wish the RC church did that...

Logged

I am no longer a "confused Roman Catholic" as I joined the Orthodox Church in April 2016.

In the old days Confession was done in front of the entire people because the purpose of it is to tell the sin that you committed against others and against God.

What the Priest should have done is tell him to turn himself in if he truly repented, pay for his crimes done against man, but forgive him for the Crimes he did against God, and then Commune him. Otherwise he is going unpunished for his crimes.

Thank you for your response. Do you think this is how most EO priests/bishops would treat the situation?

In the RC Church, the priest is not allowed to give you a penance that would expose your crimes to others. For example, if you murder someone, the priest cannot tell you to turn yourself in as a condition of the remission of one's sins. So while I think this is a good idea solution for the EO church (he did not publicly repent, but rather mocked the public), in the RC Church, he was not required to publicly repent. Therefore, he was still given absolution and thus should have received a funeral Mass.

Personally, I think the EO form of penance is better. If a person publicly sinned and caused scandal to his community, he should repent in front of them. I wish the RC church did that...

If someone commits a crime, then his sins will be loosed by the priest on the condition that he takes responsibility for his crime. So, the person is now responsible before God (who forgave his sins) to take responsibility. Even the priest is allowed to tell someone to the police, if that person doesn't look like he will do it himself; would be sad for priest to have to do it, but he is no different than any responsible member of society.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

This partial denial of the Holocaust is yet another thing that we need to know more about. The politically correct militia of our days won't even let you discuss the Holocaust, or dispute certain elements, things that should be part of the normal social discourse. Of course, if that's the case, you couldn't blame it on the person we are talking about.

Then he shouldn't have even gotten any sacraments. This is what I don't get: he was repentant and participated in the life of the church, but was refused funeral service? That wouldn't make sense.

What we don't know is the status of the priest who confessed this man and what his secular beliefs were. Priests are not robots, dispassionately conducting services and granting absolution. Perhaps he was a Holocaust denier or noted revisionist who was known to Church authorities.

This would not be the first case where a church burial was denied to avoid placing the church in scandal. I know of local situations where an Orthodox Bishop, when consulted by the pastor, denied a full church funeral for disciplinary reasons.

The Catholic answer to the deceased' s relationship to God here would be akin to an Orthodox one. If he died in communion with the church, having been confessed, absolved and having received the Eucharist, the absence of a burial ritual will not impact his standing at the Final Judgment. That we leave to God. But if the public burial were to be used by some as earthly "proof" of the church's "approval" of the deceased, given his lifelong public denial of responsibility for his acts during the war, I have no issue with the Vatican's decision.

This is a war crimes issue, not a Holocaust one and it involves sensitive issues regarding the complicity of elements of the Catholic Church in Preibke's crimes.

"Erich Priebke (29 July 1913 – 11 October 2013) was a German Hauptsturmführer (Captain) in the SS police force (Sipo).[1] In 1996 he was convicted of war crimes in Italy, for participating in the massacre at the Ardeatine caves in Rome on 24 March 1944. 335 Italian civilians (among them 75 Italians of Jewish ancestry[2]) were killed in retaliation for a partisan attack that killed 33 German soldiers. Priebke was one of those held responsible for this mass execution. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, he received help from a bishop stationed in Rome and fled to Argentina on a Vatican passport, where he lived for over 50 years.In 1991, Priebke's participation in the Rome massacre was denounced in Esteban Buch's book.[3] In 1994, 50 years after the massacre, Priebke felt he could now talk about the incident and was interviewed by American ABC news reporter Sam Donaldson. This caused outrage among people who had not forgotten the incident, and led to his extradition to Italy and a trial which would last more than four years." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Priebke

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

We cannot possibly judge the state of this man's soul. We do not know of what he repented, nor what he confessed to his priest.

However, if the Church deemed it acceptable to administer other Sacraments to the individual, it would seem that denying others, is merely an action taken in order to keep the peace, and placate the masses.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

However, if the Church deemed it acceptable to administer other Sacraments to the individual, it would seem that denying others, is merely an action taken in order to keep the peace, and placate the masses.

Mass is not required for funeral in catholicism neither in Orthodoxy. It makes the event more pompous therefore it was not allowed.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

However, if the Church deemed it acceptable to administer other Sacraments to the individual, it would seem that denying others, is merely an action taken in order to keep the peace, and placate the masses.

Mass is not required for funeral in catholicism neither in Orthodoxy. It makes the event more pompous therefore it was not allowed.

Quite right, in many ways the ceremony is more for the immediate benefit of the living. We have other ways of commemorating the deceased, as do our Roman Catholic friends.

Don't underestimate that there may very well have been a priest with far right sympathies, operating out of his Bishop's immediate control, who confessed this man and communed him. Alternatively, while the parish priest may have given him the 'benefit of the doubt' leaving final judgement to God, the Bishop may have had different ideas all along about how to handle the death of the man.

The whole Fascist era remains a hot button issue in Italy and across Europe in ways that are difficult for Americans to understand. We only view it generally only through the Holocaust lens, which is understandable, but where living families grew up among those complicit with the excesses of Fascism - not just the relocation and extermination camps - this remains an issue.

If he had such widespread notoriety, but he had confessed his crimes to an EO priest, and was repentant, he would have had a complete Funeral Service. Perhaps it would not have been celebrated in the context of the divine liturgy, but our memorial services for the dead can also be held independently of the liturgy.

If by all outward signs he was repentant (and perhaps even if he was not) there should have been a memorial service for him. Jesus seems very clear that we must forgive others, we cannot let that attitude of thinking a persons sins so heinous that they cannot receive salvation. It would seem to me then we all can never be saved.